Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37409264›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Secondary post-oncologic vulvar reconstruction - a simplified algorithm.

Anna Amelia Caretto, Maria Servillo, Luca Tagliaferri, Valentina Lancellotta, Simona Maria Fragomeni, Giorgia Garganese, Giovanni Scambia, Stefano Gentileschi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anna Amelia CarettoDipartimento Universitario di Medicina e Chirurgia Traslazionale, Rome, Italy.
Maria ServilloCasa di Cura Villa Stuart, BAC Center, Rome, Italy.
Luca TagliaferriFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Dipartimento Diagnostica per Immagini Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Rome, Italy.
Valentina LancellottaFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Dipartimento Diagnostica per Immagini Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Rome, Italy.
Simona Maria FragomeniFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Unità Ginecologia Oncologica, Rome, Italy.
Giorgia GarganeseDipartimento Universitario di Medicina e Chirurgia Traslazionale, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni ScambiaDipartimento Universitario di Medicina e Chirurgia Traslazionale, Rome, Italy.
Stefano GentileschiDipartimento Universitario di Medicina e Chirurgia Traslazionale, Rome, Italy.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITCasa di Cura Villa Pini d’Abruzzo · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Surgical treatment is the gold standard of care for vulvar cancer and is burdened by a high risk of wound complications due to the poor healing typical of the female genital area. Moreover, this malignancy has a high risk of local relapse even after wide excision. For these reasons, secondary reconstruction of the vulvoperineal area is a relevant and challenging scenario for gynecologists and plastic surgeons. The presence of tissue already operated on and undermined, scars, incisions, the possibility of previous radiation therapy, contamination of urinary and fecal pathogens in the dehiscent wound or ulcerated tumor, and the unavailability of some flaps employed during the primary procedure are typical complexities of this surgery. Due to the rarity of this tumor, a rational approach to secondary reconstruction has never been proposed in the literature. Methods: In this observational retrospective study, we reviewed the clinical data of patients affected by vulvar cancer who underwent secondary reconstruction of the vulvoperineal area in our hospital between 2013 and 2023. Oncological, reconstructive, demographic, and complication data were recorded. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of wound complications. The secondary outcome measure was the indication of the different flaps, according to the defect, to establish an algorithm for decision-making. Results: Sixty-six patients were included; mean age was 71.3 ± 9.4 years, and the mean BMI was 25.1 ± 4.9. The mean size of the defect repaired by secondary vulvar reconstruction was 178 cm Discussion: A systematic approach to secondary vulvar reconstruction can provide good surgical results with a low rate of complications. The geometry of the defect and the use of both traditional and perforator flaps should guide the choice of the reconstructive technique.

Indexed as

flap reconstructiongroin reconstructiongynecological cancersecondary vulvar reconstructionvulvar cancervulvar reconstructionvulvoperineal reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID37409264
PMCPMC10318400
OpenAlexW4381334887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.